Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka By The P S I vs Sayyed @ Sayyad Ahamed @ Sayyad Meer on 19 December, 2008
EN THE HIGH CGURT OF KRRNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 19"'2my 0? DECEMBER, 2oQ3 1_ BEFORE: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.
Pgcafikguég _ V CRIMINAL APPEAL No 399 0? 2$06' 'é 7*V"J BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka by the Wm '"
Sub*Inspector of Poliqé; Lashkar Palice Station, "
Mysore. V ,m_'a fig;' APPELLANT/S [By 3:2. M.G Agjgna Mu;tfiy{ gas? $5 AND:
sayyed'@ Sayyad,fihamed_ g' @ Sayya& Meer,. *Wr V,°m';
sfo. 1atewAbdul"Rahe@m}g' Aged about??? years;,V R/0. fiQ;§6GG, III Crcss, ~,Kaka:aVad1, C§amérajé'Mbhal1a, qMy$Org City; "
Pfa$énti§ fesLfling at No.205, 2" Cross, Rahamaanlya Street, Kmmfiwwfip"
ChamarajafiMohalla, >MysQre City.
'§z"§t"i' RESPONQENT/S .fBy~Sfi. Dinegh Kumar K.Rao, Amicus Curiae} This Crl. Appeal is filed ufSectio§ 378{3} & {3} Cr.P.C. by the State P.¥. for the State praying that this Hon'ble Caurt may be pleased to grant laave to file an appeal against the Judgment dt. thereafter, P.W.1 lodged the cemplaint against the accused and P.W.3 registered the said eom;:e;nt [Ex.P1} in Crime No.11?/2393 and sent the eeeeEe:eng« with the FIR {Ex.P6] to the Magistrate eee en teeJ . presence of the attesting §:én§ss§s,;«§é:;§§7 fig golden beads end the portion *g$= eke eg§a:n."e§de:, mahezar {Ex.P2} in tee fi*preeeeeeg_efE ?:W.2. Thereafter, he went fie the gfieé and ee1d«éhe epot mahazar iEX.P3j in thé'§;e§eé§g efe?¥N,? and another and recorded gn§'s:a§§fi§n§g §§j;he eienesses'and the voluntary" etefefienf_ of "the£ eeeeeee as per Ex.P7. After cempletiongef.the'inyesfiigation, P.W.% filed charge sheet against the accused. Durifie, the ntrieg} the prosecution examined ~,?.%s¢i. fio ? "and in their evidence got marked Vfieeeumente,SxS;P1 to 8 and M.O.l. The statement of the 3ecfisee_weS recorded ender Section 313 Cr.P.C. V_He hes tekefi the defence of tote} fienial and has net '>iefi;Lany~ defence evidence. The Trial Court on _epereeietien ef the evidence on recerd acquitted the w,"ag§ueeefzespeedent and aggzieveé by the Order, this eeppeel has been preferred. Cki:.,»
4. have heard the learned Geverement Pleeder %--4 fer the appeliant and also the learneé Amicus Curiae fer the respendent.
5. The point that arises fer my censiflefetien is;
Whether the Judgment afiaae:dert§£_e"' acquittal of the accueed fef the éhfitge under Section 392 I§Ce is *iIiegaii"end_Wf perverse? u t t t V' t
6. It is tfie_ cohtent;Qfi; of thet leareed Government Fleade: that the*etcgee§ was arrested at the spet ,andVttheteeftert'immediatelyt the cemplaint was lodged on the eate_ef the iecideet, within one hour gate 15"_eihutes. ?.W}1 and P.W.6 are the teietivee ef P w.5 who have supported the versiea of the prcseeutien and in the citcumstances, he eubmits that the eeqeittal of the reseendent by the Trial T". 'Court is illegal.
*._?. Per centre, the leatned Emices Curiae fer V"«_the§ reeeendemt submits that except the intereeted ;ver3ien of P.Ws.i to 5, thete is me other material and the mahegat {Ex.P2E has not been proved as ?.W.2 0/xt 5 has turned hostile and therefere, he submits that there is we Hmteriai fox conviction and the Trial Ceert has passed a just Order on appreciatioe7ef the materiai on record. Hence, he submits ahet there are no grounds to warrant the interferegee,'»"
8. It is relevant to eete that tee incieent teak place on 15.64.2903 at aboet-3.Q0ip;m; ;;é,;g aiso in the public road, whee ?.WSL1f S efie 6 were standing in frent ef*,Vieeyexe<V?extileSi in Mysore City. The perusal oft the5 e§e$S?examinetion of ?.Ws.1 and 5_deee nee reeeaiieflyuriéelry er etraieed relaticeshie i[between * the; Complainant and the accused." ie this eeeteitf if the evidence of P.We.E and 5,13 ioekedwintd, the version is consistent and 'there ie no reesefi fer these witnesses to imeiicate tfiheieecesedifieisely and apart from this, the accused wee §éughtT;E the spot and was produced before the e§eurt..RE.W.1 filed the comyiaint {Ex.P1] within an hheer",end 15 minutes ef the incident. Se, tee
-Lcéntéfits 0f' EX.?2 have beenr cexreberatedr from the "eiekidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 aed though ?.W.6 has turned shoetile, incidentally hag supported the prosecution. In the circumstances taking into consideration the consistent, cogent and acceptable evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and 6 and the feet that the accused was caught at the spot and the complaint was ieeeeieteiy filed, there ie he chance for the cempieijehtiei the'. Investigating Agency to impiicete tithe itneceeee_ falsely; This evidence is ciinehxhgiy. eeint teeth that the accused was the fiereenxeoieiytteepensiblerL for snatching the golden chain"{M;Q.l}h* Q. It is necessary to hete_thet the perusal of the evidence .deest net yteveei 5eey3 threat by the accused and;'thefefcre;n,the 7offence committed does not emennt :tct.;Qhbery:L _It would amount to an offence ender 'Sectien,r3?9 IPC. The theft is dishonestiy htetinfi mofieabie property without the ; consent ef ?,W.5 end in the circemstahces, I am of the* epihienigthet the Tziei Court committed an 'i7 , iliegeiity in fiiscatding the evidence of P.Ws.2 ané i. 45' and .the tether evidence made available by the Whiefosecetions and granted the acquittal. The close i\_'scthtihy of the evidence led by the pzesecetieh is Vsefficient to hold that the accused is guiity for ~.. z the offence under Section 379 IPC. A§:;W